Following Doctors advice results in treatment funding withdrawl

FrustratedRegular

FBaby wrote: »

But according to your post, when it was offered to you again, you delayed it again so your wife could finish her studies. Surely this was her choice?

What is not clear from your posts is what was the cause of either or both of you meeting the criteria in the first place that led them to funding being agreed. Was any factor recognised with your wife that meant that you would have been eligible for funding or was it agreed on the basis of your low sperm count? If it was because of your low sperm count, it makes sense that funding would have been withdrawn when your count went back within the normal parameters. It then would be dependent on your wife condition as to whether you would still be elligible.

Yes when we were told we had to delay for 2 years or potentially more depending on the impact of treatment we did discussed with them the consequences of going on a 3 year course and was told that was no issue. The CCG are stating the 2 year delay itself was incompatible with their funding agreement. Clearly if we were told all of this at the time rather than being told it would all be fine then we would have fought the instructions to delay for 2 years straight off.


It was female factor only that funding was agreed on. My count was 8m at the time with all other elements (mobility, form etc) all being above average. Obv that is lower than normal which could cause challenges but it was only put through against my wifes condition.

She has PCOS with ultra sounds showing very high counts of cysts but despite that blood works suggest ovulation is occurring each month and her cycles have been regular since she starting on metformin circa 15 years ago.

Clomid was tried both with her ex and myself, though other docs have said that was the wrong route because of her bloodworks show ovulation occurs naturally. She also had ovarian drilling with her ex but this time the consultant also thought that a waste of time due to bloodworks

Referral was made for IVF on female factors, subnoted that ICSI would be covered if deemed necessary but was not expected to be used as 8m of good quality was more than enough for IVF without the need for ICSI.

If we had been told the 12 months+ "of trying naturally" would cost us our funding we would have fought the instruction further than referring it to another consultant for another opinion. If we had been told the consultants instructions were ok but nothing longer then she wouldnt have gone to uni or may have and put the course on hold as soon as she was able to go for IVF but we were told time and time again that this was all fine both medically and funding wise.

FrustratedRegular

Well things are still stalled. Drs at the hospital are not responding to either the CCG or the hospitals complaints team and so neither are able to proceed at all.

Their current position is simply, apply again, go through the test again but probably not as many and everything probably will be ok. Guess these are all people that think its just filling in a couple of forms and waiting a few weeks and not months/ years of arguing if Clomid, ovarian drilling or IUI are better first steps or not plus many bloods, ultra sounds, internal examinations etc